The UK government’s strategy to reach net zero emissions by 2050 was ruled to fall short of legal requirements by the High Court for a second time, with the court supporting challenges claiming that the plan did not provide sufficient information on the risk to achieving the required emissions reductions, which rely in part on the development of future technologies.
The UK government’s strategy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 has been deemed insufficient by the High Court for a second time. The court supported challenges stating that the plan lacked adequate information on the risks associated with achieving required emissions reductions, especially concerning the development of future technologies.
In response to the ruling the High Court has mandated the government to produce a revised climate strategy within 12 months.
This decision follows a previous case filed in 2022 by environmental and legal campaign groups, including Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth, and Good Law Project. They contested the government’s Net Zero Strategy released in October 2021, arguing that it lacked crucial details on how climate targets would be met, particularly in quantifying the contributions of outlined policies towards carbon budget goals.
The court’s initial ruling in 2022 favored the organizations’ claims, ordering the government to publish a new report by March 2023. This report was to outline proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets, including time frames and sector-specific impacts, ensuring transparency in the government’s net zero plans.
In response, the government released its Carbon Budget Delivery Plan in March 2023, detailing proposals and policies to support the strategy’s carbon budget objectives.
In June 2023, however, Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and Good Law Project launched a new case against the revised plan, arguing that the updated strategy failed to address the risks that its key policies may not achieve the emissions reductions needed to reach legally binding targets, with the plan assuming that all of its proposals and policies would be delivered in full, and that the “conclusion that the proposals and policies will enable the carbon budgets to be met was irrational.”
In a statement released following the ruling, ClientEarth explained that the case was brought based on the belief that the revised plan failed to meet legal standards, as it “relies on high-risk and unproven technologies to tackle climate change, as well as vague and uncertain proposals.”
In the judgement, Mr. Justice Sheldon upheld four of the organization’s five grounds, with the ruling stating:
If, as I have found, the Secretary of State did make his decision on the assumption that each of the proposals and policies would be delivered in full, then the Secretary of State’s decision was taken on the basis of a mistaken understanding of the true factual position.
Mr. Justice Sheldon
Following the new ruling ClientEarth’s senior lawyer, said:
The courts have now told the UK government not once, but twice, that its climate strategy is not fit for purpose. This time the court made it emphatically clear: the government cannot just cross its fingers and hope for high-risk technologies and uncertain policies to plug the huge gaps in its plans.
ClientEarth Senior Lawyer, Sam Hunter Jones
